supreme court
The highest court has the highest stakes. Analysis of Supreme Court justices and their always-controversial rulings.
When a Society Stops Replacing Itself: The Consequences of Declining Birthrates and the Path Toward Recovery. AI-Generated.
Introduction: The Consequences of a Changing Population In Part One, we examined the changes that reshaped American family formation across more than sixty years. From the expansion of contraception and changing marriage laws to rising living expenses, declining religious participation, increasing chronic illness, digital socialization, changing relationships between men and women, and the growing complexity of raising children, numerous developments have contributed to the conditions surrounding modern reproduction.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcast8 days ago in The Swamp
Buy the Election(s)
It’s not bad enough that we have to deal with the most ignorant president of all time in the U.S. His cabinet members make idiotic moves daily. The richest person in the world benefits by being joined to Mr. Cheeto President. You know who it is. Rockets to Mars, 14 kids by different women (that we know of), a ketamine-infused trillionaire who could use his money for good but instead buys elections.
By Andrea Corwin 17 days ago in The Swamp
He Said What?
He said what? The sitting President of the United States at another unnecessary rally stated he’s willing to sacrifice two (yes, TWO) American cities to expedite ending the war with Iran (a war HE STARTED). Yet, shortly after making the audacious announcement, our elected officials in Congress sit idly by doing absolutely nothing to hold him, or his administration, accountable. Another day in a falling into authoritarian America!
By Iris Harris20 days ago in The Swamp
The Worker of Pathways and the Bubble of Greed
The Worker of Pathways and the Bubble of Greed Copilot The Worker of Pathways walked into a world where the sky looked normal, but the air felt wrong, stretched thin, like something enormous was sucking the breath out of the streets.
By Vicki Lawana Trusselli about a month ago in The Swamp
The Missing Argument in the Stay-at-Home Parent Subsidy Debate
Preface: Video Context: Video Credit: Timcast / Tim Pool This article is a response to a recent Timcast segment discussing the proposed policy that would allow qualifying married couples with a stay-at-home parent to receive childcare subsidies of roughly $9,000 per child per year. The video frames the central debate around whether this amounts to additional welfare or whether it simply redirects money government is already spending on childcare toward parents who choose to provide that care themselves. Around 9:32–10:20 , Tim argues that the welfare expenditure already exists and that the important change is where the incentive points: instead of subsidizing families specifically when parents work and children are cared for elsewhere, the same funding could begin supporting married parents who raise their children at home.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcast2 months ago in The Swamp
A Better Buyout: Paying Married Parents to Buy Back Their Time
A Different Kind of Buyout I previously proposed what I called a Family Support Buyout: give families the option to voluntarily exchange a large portion of the government benefits and services already being spent on their behalf for one predictable, untaxed monthly payment they control themselves. Instead of administering SNAP, childcare subsidies, housing assistance, refundable credits, cash assistance, and other ordinary supports through separate bureaucracies, government could calculate the avoidable cost of those programs and offer families perhaps 65, 70, or 75 percent of that value directly. The family would relinquish the benefits being replaced, taxpayers would retain the remaining savings, and the household would gain dramatically greater control over how its resources are allocated. Medical coverage, disability services, catastrophic healthcare, and other specialized needs could remain separate because those costs are less suitable for a simple cash conversion. The central idea was straightforward: if government is already spending $100 supporting a family, perhaps both taxpayers and the family can benefit if the family receives $70 directly instead.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcast2 months ago in The Swamp
